1897-1059 DEGREES OF PROCEDURE ACTIVATION AND THE GERMAN MODAL PARTICLES JA AND DOCH – PART 2 Unger Christoph author Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) 05xg72x27 Correspondence to: Christoph Unger 15 06 2016 Volume 133, Issue 1 2016 47 61 Copyright © 2016 2016 <p>In this paper I argue that a unitary account of the modal and non-modal uses of the German particles ja and doch can be provided by appealing to essentially non-representational properties of the theory of procedural meaning in Relevance Theory (RT). According to Wilson (2011), procedural indicators such as ja and doch function by raising the activation level of cognitive procedures, increasing the likelihood that audiences following the RT comprehension heuristic will use these procedures. Partially following proposals by König (1997) and Blass (2000, 2014), I would like to posit that ja and doch trigger a procedure to raise the epistemic strength of the proposition conveyed. Doch triggers a second procedure in addition, a constraint on context selection to the effect that the proposition conveyed must be processed in a context containing its negation. Since raising the activation level of cognitive procedures can be done in degrees, I argue that the basic difference between modal and non-modal uses of ja and doch is a reflection of differences in the degree of activation level rise: non-modal uses of ja and doch raise the activation of the manifestness procedure to a high degree, giving rise to effects such as emphasis or contrast, whereas modal uses raise this procedure’s activation level merely to some degree. As a result, modal ja and doch are uniquely suitable to mark propositions that do not need much evidential strengthening but would benefit from some such effect. This is most typically the case in mutually manifest assumptions that the communicator intends to use as premises in arguments. However, in some discourse contexts assumptions that are not mutually manifest may also fit this description. The prediction of this analysis is that the modal uses of ja and doch do not form a clearly delimited class; rather, borderline cases exist defying generalizations. I will present data from a qualitative corpus study that confirms these predictions.</p> 1 Blakemore D. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford. 2 Blakemore D. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning. Cambridge. 3 Blakemore D. 2004. Discourse markers. – Horn L.R., Ward G. (eds.). The handbook of prag- matics. Oxford: 221–240. 4 Blakemore D. 2005. And-parentheticals. – Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1165–1181. 5 Blass R. 1990. Relevance relations in discourse. Cambridge. 6 Blass R. 2000. Particles, propositional attitude and mutual manifestness. – Andersen G., Fretheim T. (eds.). Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude. Amsterdam: 39–52. 7 Blass R. 2014. German evidential procedural indicators ja and wohl in comprehension and argumentation. [Paper presented at the conference Interpreting for Relevance. Univer- sity of Warsaw]. 8 Carston R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances. Oxford. 9 Grice H.P. 1957. Meaning. – The Philosophical Review 66.3: 377–388. 10 Grice H.P. 1967. William James Lectures. – [reprinted in] Grice H.P. 1989. 11 Grice H.P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge (MA). 12 Ifantidou E. 2001. Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam. 13 Ifantidou-Trouki E. 1993. Sentential adverbs and relevance. – Lingua 90: 69–90. 14 Iten C. 2005. Linguistic meaning, truth conditions and relevance: The case of concessives. [Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language, and Cognition]. Basingstoke. 15 Kaplan D. 1989. Demonstratives. – Almog J., Wettstein J., Perry J. (eds.). Themes from Kaplan. New York: 481–563. 16 König E. 1997. Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. – Germanistische Linguistik 136: 57–75. 17 Potts C. 2005. The logic of conversational implicatures. Oxford. 18 Potts C. 2007. Into the conventional-implicature dimension. – Philosophy Compass 2.4: 665– 679. 19 Recanati F. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge. 20 Sperber D., Wilson D. 1986/1995. Relevance. Oxford. 21 Stalnaker R. 2002. Common ground. – Linguistics and Philosophy 25.5: 701–721. 22 Unger C. 2011. Exploring the borderline between procedural encoding and pragmatic inference. – Escandell-Vidal V., Leonetti M., Ahern A. (eds.). Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives. [vol. 25. Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface]. Bingley: 103–127. 23 Waltereit R. 2001. Modal particles and their functional equivalents: A speech-act-theoretic approach. – Journal of Pragmatics 33.9: 1391–1417. 24 Wharton T. 2003a. Interjections, language, and the ‘showing/saying’ continuum. – Pragmatics &amp; Cognition 11.1: 39–91. 25 Wharton T. 2003b. Natural pragmatics and natural codes. – Mind &amp; Language 18.5: 447–477. 26 Wharton T. 2009. Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge. 27 Wilson D. 2011. The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. – Escandell Vidal V., Leonetti M., Ahern A. (eds.). Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives. [vol. 25. Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface]. Bingley: 3–31. 28 Wilson D., Sperber D. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. – Lingua 90.1/2: 1–25. 29 Wilson D., Sperber D. 2004. Relevance Theory. – Horn L.R., Ward G. (eds.). The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: 607–632. 30 Wilson D., Sperber D. 2012. Meaning and relevance. Cambridge.